July 31, 2014, 08:50:52 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 28
Lenses / Cost for Canon Factory Adjustment/Tuning
« on: September 23, 2013, 08:01:21 PM »
I just fixed 2 copies of the 24-105mm (both had the infamous broken aperture ribbon cable issue).  They are both working flawlessly, however, I have no way of testing the lens to see what affect on image quality removing and re-installling the two sets of eccentric adjusting sliders had.  I would like to send the lens to Canon for adjustment before I sell one off, but Canon does not do up-front quotes without inspecting the lens.  Has anyone sent a lens to Canon out of warranty for adjustment (not repair)?  If so, how costly was it in the US?  Any help or experiences are greatly appreciated. 

I would like to be totally upfront about a lens when I go to sell it, and I would prefer to say it just came back from Canon for optical tuning (either way I'll tell the buyer I personally did the aperture replacement).  If the cost for tuning is fairly inexpensive I'll do it, but if it's going to run $150+ then it won't be worth it.

Lenses / Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« on: September 17, 2013, 02:06:54 PM »
The point is that the 70-200/4L and 200/2.8L offer better IQ than the 70-300 non-L, even cropped to the 300mm AoV, and for similar cost. 

Also, as I stated - I tried two copies of the 70-300 non-L, and found both to be unacceptably soft from 200-300mm.  On an 18 MP APS-C, stopping down to f/11 was about the best compromise between lens sharpness and diffraction, and on FF away from the center, neither delivered acceptable sharpness at any aperture. Not acceptable for $650, not acceptable for $275. Obviously, I'm judging based on my own standards and for the lenses I tried, YMMV.
I think neuro hit the nail on the head here, much better IQ can be achieved with shorter FLs cropped to 300mm than the 70-300 IS, and also have the added benefit of good AF, build quality and overall handling.  Add to that the fact that we are discussing this lens against the likes of the 55-250mm and when you consider the price of all the lenses we're discussing, it is very clear that the current 70-300mm IS is overpriced:

LensYearMSRP     Retail    Used
70-210mm USM1990------$125-150
100-300mm USM1990------$125-150
55-250mm IS2007/2011   $300$265$125-150
Tamron 70-300 VC    2010$450$450$230-280
70-300mm IS2005$650$650$300-360
70-200mm L1999$710$680$475-525

The discontinued 1990 USM lenses (15 years older) offer similar IQ with better build quality and focusing for considerably less money.  Conversely, the 70-200L non-IS is slightly more expensive but is substantially better in all aspects.

Despite an exceptionally dark shooting environment4 of less than 0.01 lux, a level in which the naked eye would have difficulty discerning surrounding objects, the CMOS sensor was able to capture not only the color of the light emitted by the fireflies, each of which measures only a few millimeters in length, and their movements, but also the surrounding vegetation in which the species lives.

0.01 lux = -8 EV

-8 EV:
1 sec, f/1.4, ISO 12800
1/15 sec, f/1.4, ISO 204800

That's some crazy low-light.  According to this a rural landscape lit by startlight (I assume a new moon) is an EV of -6.

Lenses / Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« on: September 12, 2013, 11:41:26 AM »
I have both the non-L 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

I use the non-L far more. Certainly not because it's better. It's not. But, it is much better than then retired 100-300 and for a host of reasons I found it to be a better lens than the 55-250 (it should be as it costs more).

I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm. Of course, it's not a low light lens and of course it can't compare to the 70-200 series but it's a fine lens. It's light, it's small, it is well built (unlike the 55-250) and it's a full frame lens. Is it worth $650? No. I bought a near mint copy for $275.

I think the STM version of the 55-250 may give it run for the money at least for those who do not also have a full frame body.

I think many of the people criticizing the non-L 70-300 either are confusing it with the 75-300 series or have never used it. For years users of both the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and the non-L 70-300 IS have debated which is the preferred lens. The IQ is better on the L but there are several reasons the 70-300 may be the preferred or better lens for many people.
Having owned the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM and now the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM I can say that at the long end of each of their ranges the 70-300mm is no better than the other two in IQ.  Mid range and at the wide end, I'd give the 70-300mm the advantage (but not by a wide margin).  Obviously the 70-300mm has IS which the other two lack, but as far as focusing goes 70-210 and 100-300 are head and shoulders above the 70-300. 

The only advantages the 70-300mm has over the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS are:
- Smaller
- Lighter
- IS

In every other department the 70-200mm is a much better lens, in my opinion.

EDIT:  I have used the 70-200mm f/4L on a few occasions, so I am speaking from personal experience.

Lenses / 70-300mm IS due for update
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:41:26 PM »
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion, but don't you think the 70-300mm IS is embarrassingly outdated, especially considering its Nikon equivalent?:

  Canon 70-300mm IS USM  Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR 
Focusing Design    Front focus, extending, rotating, no FTM      Internal focus, FTM 
Focusing Motor  Micro USM, noisy, slow  Ring-type SWM, silent, fairly fast 
Stabilization  3 stops  4 stops 
Year  2005  2006 
MSRP  $650 US  $590 US 
Street Price  $360 US eBay / $650 US B&H  $420 US eBay / $587 B&H 

One could say that Canon did upgrade it by releasing the 70-300mm L, but that is in a whole different price bracket, and shouldn't be compared.  It would be like comparing the Canon vs. Nikon 28-300mm lenses; they are clearly in different classes.  How has Canon not updated this lens in the past 7 years?

I must say, I miss the fast, quiet and accurate focusing my old 100-300mm USM and 70-210mm USM lenses had; and they were small and light, too.  If either of those lenses had IS I would not have considered 'upgrading' to the 70-300mm.  I wish Canon would up date this lens to be on par with Nikon and stay in the same price bracket.

I also find it funny that Canon announced this lens alongside the crowd-pleaser 24-105mm L. 

By the way, I have used both, as I own the Canon and my dad owned the Nikon (on a D600).  The Nikon wins hands-down in overall feel, responsiveness, build quality, etc.

The first ever production FF DSLR was the Contax N of spring 2002. The 1Ds was the second FF DSLR, launched in September 2002, allowing of EF lenses with the conventional film AoV.

Worth noting that the Contax N used a Phillips CCD sensor, and the 1Ds was CMOS.  Similarly, the original 1D was a CCD sensor (with a 1/500 s Xsync, and made by Panasonic), while the 1D II and subsequent models were CMOS.

Philips ;)

Mark it on the calendar folks, neuro was corrected by another member.  /joking

Neuro, I totally agree with you that the DCS460 was one of the most unelegant designs ever.  However, Canon was not immune to ugly-early-DSLR-syndrome:

DCS 1 / DCS 3 /DCS 5 - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2936.msg61510#msg61510
Kodak DCS 520/Canon D2000 - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs520/
Kodak DCS 560/Canon D6000 - http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/data/1995-2004/1998_eos-d6000.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1995-2004
Look at how far the backs stick out for the DCS 1/3/5 cameras - you'd practically need the EX15 eyepiece extender to even get a complete view.

Even the D30 and D60 had horrible ergonomics for the AF, Drive, and AE butons:

Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 08, 2013, 11:38:16 AM »
Thought I'd update the thread with my success today.  I replaced the aperture in a 24-105L and it is working flawlessly.  Total amount spent - $418.18.  Not bad considering it was my first L lens.  One thing I learned while disassembling it is that it has two apertures.  One normal aperture for stopping down, and another secondary aperture that closes down based on focal length (to keep the aperture constant throughout the zoom range (without it I'm guess this lens would be a 24-105mm f/2.8-4).  The standard aperture in the 24-105mm is 8-bladed, the secondary aperture is 9.  Just thought you would all find that interesting.

EDIT: I used these two videos to help guide me through the process -

Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 06, 2013, 05:19:18 PM »
As someone who has turned thousands of screws on cameras and lenses, be aware that although the screws look like Phillips head, they are in fact not.  If you would like to prevent damage to screw heads and be able to properly tighten everything upon reassembly, a set of JIS (Japanese Industrial Standard) screwdrivers is recommended.  I own an recommend Moody Tools in the USA, as they are one of the few tool makers still making JIS and supplying them in the US.

I went through 3 sets of Phillips micro screwdrivers before I said "enough" and special ordered a set of JIS on Amazon.  After receiving them and using them, I question why it took me so long to take the plunge.  If you intend to fix one lens one time, Phillips will do just fine, if you think you might start playing around with other broken cameras or lenses it's worth it to pick up a set.  Magnetic handles are handy, JIS #0 and JIS #00 will take care of 99% of the screws in a camera or lens.


Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:14:23 AM »
what the what? (as my 4year old is prone to saying)
I like that phrase. May I have your 4 year old's permission to use it when appropriate? :)
"What the what?" Is a popular catch phrase of Liz Lemon (played by Tina Fey) on NBC's 30 Rock (a personal favorite of mine).

Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 05, 2013, 08:43:21 PM »
Welcome, Emil, I also enjoy fixing my own gear.  I have repaired about 2 dozen bodies and about a dozen lenses.  In fact, just today I received a broken 24-105mm that needs a new aperture.  I'm excited, as this will be my first L lens fix.  Glad your first foray into DIY lens fixing was successful.  I hope you have many more successes in the future.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Underwater DSLR Cases
« on: September 04, 2013, 11:55:07 PM »
Think Canon will ever come out with an EOS M UW case?  Or a future mirror less case?

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Underwater DSLR Cases
« on: September 04, 2013, 10:51:01 PM »
I've thought about an S95, S100, S110, G12, G15, G16 or G1 X and the compatible Canon housing to replace my SD600 for the rare underwater excursion, with the added ability to do HD video.  I really didn't bring it up because I'm planning on buying an Ikelite or anything, I was just more curious than anything else about others' experiences on the forum.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Underwater DSLR Cases
« on: September 04, 2013, 08:53:58 PM »
Just out of curiosity, how many of the CR regulars own and/or have used an underwater case with their DSLR?  What has the experience been like? 

Based on their prices (new and used) I doubt I'll be in the market for one anytime soon.  Additionally, I can't think of many occasions during which I'd use it, but I think it would be fun to play with.  Please share with the community if you have had any experiences with one.

Canon General / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 11:24:07 AM »
Updating the lens after 5 years? That would be quick. Is having a superior 800mm lens that important to Canon?
Well, you could look at it that way. 

Or you could be excited by the fact that this quick replacement means that Canon has yet again exceeded its own high bar.  The original 800mm was sharper than the 600mm IS + 1.4x.  Now that the 600mm IS II + 1.4x  is sharper than the 800mm, not to mention lighter and has better IS.  Currently there is absolutely no reason to buy the 800mm, since better IQ and greater versatility can be had with the 600mm and 1.4x III (for almost identical prices).  Canon knows this and will update the 800mm accordingly. 

I know only a very small minority will ever own or use this lenses, but it certainly shows Canon is able to surpass itself in a very short amount of time, and that should make all of us happy (except for the climbing retail prices on these new items).

Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 30, 2013, 08:45:31 AM »
I can't remember how many times we've gone over this on this forum, but I'll present it again:

There is no size advantage for an EF-S telephoto lens

In the telephoto lens design the only two factors that will determine size are -
1) Focal length (e.g. 300mm), or longest focal length in the case of zooms
2) Aperture (e.g. f/4), or aperture at the longest focal length in the case of zooms

A 300mm f/4 lens, regardless of the sensor size for which is was design, will always have an objective (read: front) element of at least 75mm (math: 300/4=75), a 70-200mm f/2.8 will always have an objective of at least 72mm.  Now, having said that, they might be able to make some of the internal elements slightly smaller, or the overall length slightly shorter, but you will never decrease the size of the objective element.

Sigma and Tamron made APS-C f/2.8 telephoto zooms, but they have the same effective focal lengths as their full frame equivalents, not the same absolute focal lengths.  That is the only thing that gives those lenses a size advantage.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 28